I’m still baffled that anyone would argue that separate bike paths are more dangerous than mixing with cars. How did this guy not get laughed out of the room every time ye claimed that?
I’m all for making mixing with cars safer too (lower speeds, more training and awareness for drivers), but separate bike paths are so much better.
Because there are some that are, because they contain dangerous design errors. So Forester fans find a city that made a load of serious mistakes in their bike paths, get the collision data, and bingo: an example where bikeways are more dangerous than roads.
More importantly, Mr. Forester tried to use dedicated bike paths like a freeway, trying to maintain 30mph and only dodging obstacles. Because he almost had a few collisions, and he claims he only almost had a collision once in many years of road cycling, he calls bike paths 1000 times more dangerous.
There’s quite a few other instances of lying with statistics, and using studies to disagree with those same study’s conclusions thinking himself smarter, but I think the one time he tried to collect his own data was the worst.
Yes, Forester was more brazen than many of his fans. His use of anecdata is the sort of argument that gets dismantled on social media and bike forums. It’s amazing he got away with it for so long, with his books being re-printed and updated. Maybe highways designers who didn’t want to bother with cyclists were happy that an ‘avid cyclist’ gave them a reason not to, so ignored the silly footnotes and bad references.
There is exactly one case where separate bike paths can be more dangerous and that’s at right turns at intersections. In my city half the deadly collisions with cyclists are of this type.
I’m still baffled that anyone would argue that separate bike paths are more dangerous than mixing with cars. How did this guy not get laughed out of the room every time ye claimed that?
I’m all for making mixing with cars safer too (lower speeds, more training and awareness for drivers), but separate bike paths are so much better.
Because there are some that are, because they contain dangerous design errors. So Forester fans find a city that made a load of serious mistakes in their bike paths, get the collision data, and bingo: an example where bikeways are more dangerous than roads.
More importantly, Mr. Forester tried to use dedicated bike paths like a freeway, trying to maintain 30mph and only dodging obstacles. Because he almost had a few collisions, and he claims he only almost had a collision once in many years of road cycling, he calls bike paths 1000 times more dangerous.
There’s quite a few other instances of lying with statistics, and using studies to disagree with those same study’s conclusions thinking himself smarter, but I think the one time he tried to collect his own data was the worst.
Yes, Forester was more brazen than many of his fans. His use of anecdata is the sort of argument that gets dismantled on social media and bike forums. It’s amazing he got away with it for so long, with his books being re-printed and updated. Maybe highways designers who didn’t want to bother with cyclists were happy that an ‘avid cyclist’ gave them a reason not to, so ignored the silly footnotes and bad references.
There is exactly one case where separate bike paths can be more dangerous and that’s at right turns at intersections. In my city half the deadly collisions with cyclists are of this type.